Ockham and Artificial Intelligence: Razors for Shaving and Counter-Shaving Compared

William of Ockham, known for his famous "razor", revolutionized philosophy by eliminating unnecessary concepts. But what would he say today about AI and its claims? Would the celebrated philosopher and theologian challenge our beliefs about consciousness and the soul, exploring the similarities between abstract concepts and AI’s pattern-based approach?

Aristotle, Roman copy of a bust by Lysippos, Palazzo Altemps, Rome.

The Razor of Ockham and the Razor of AI

After discussing last week the Dominican friar Giordano Bruno and his metaphor of Actaeon (Is God in the details? No, in computers. A Hypothesis on Man, Nature, and Artificial Intelligence), today I want to draw a parallel between two exceptionally influential cultural events: Ockham’s razor and a new "razor" that is emerging through AI.

William of Ockham (1288–1347) was not only a philosopher but also a Franciscan friar. He is best known for the principle of "Ockham’s razor", which roughly states:

"It is useless to use more concepts to explain something if they are not strictly necessary."

With this simple yet powerful statement, Ockham dismissed much of ancient philosophy, including:

• Platonism (Ideas exist in a non-physical world and humans merely recall them);

• Aristotelianism (Each object has an immaterial essence that emanates toward our perception);

• Medieval Scholasticism, which attempted to prove that Catholicism was both faith and reason.

Ockham boldly asserted:

"Anything that is not tangible to the senses is merely a concept created by the human mind."

• World of Ideas? What proof do we have? Goodbye, Plato.

• Immutable essence within things? Any evidence? Goodbye, Aristotle.

• God incarnated to save mankind from sin? These are elaborated, unprovable concepts. Goodbye, Catholicism.

Ockham believed in God—but only through faith, not reason. This was scandalous for a tradition that had always used philosophy and logic to justify Christian doctrine.

Raphael, The School of Athens

Ockham and the AI Debate: Consciousness, Soul, and Rational Proofs

In 1324, Ockham was accused of heresy—much like Giordano Bruno centuries later—but he escaped execution, unlike Bruno, who was burned at the stake.

Ockham did not argue that God could be deduced from nature but instead formulated that God is within nature.

Ockham took the razor and cut away everything unnecessary. What would he say today about the defenses we use to protect human uniqueness?

For example, on the claim that machines will never have consciousness or a soul, Ockham would ask:

"How do you prove the existence of consciousness and the soul in humans?"

For Ockham, reality is always individual (anticipating Neuro-Linguistic Programming by 700 years). What is conscious for one person may not be for another. Rather than relying on abstract and unprovable concepts like "consciousness" or "soul," we must concretely identify what AI can never do.

Ockham would likely appreciate:

• Turing’s test, which provides an empirical proof of intelligence;

• CAPTCHA systems, which predict whether a user is human or not by recognizing motion, hydrants, and other objects.

Perhaps CAPTCHAs are actually testing whether we have a soul? Do we need a soul to pass a CAPTCHA? Honestly, I don’t know, because I can’t even define my own soul. But I do know that in 2013, someone wrote a program that could pass these tests.

The New Razor: Does Consciousness Exist as an Independent Entity?

Today, we face a new razor:

Does consciousness exist as a separate entity?

Are we certain that consciousness is more than just a chemical-physical synthesis of external stimuli?

This question is far from trivial. For both religious believers and many atheists, consciousness is the key difference between humans and machines.

For Ockham, concepts are just concepts. Using abstract concepts like "soul" or "consciousness" does not contribute to understanding; it actually complicates it.

• You can have faith that the soul exists, but you cannot use that concept to explain a tangible reality.

• Multiplying concepts unnecessarily does not help humans understand; it only confuses them.

Patterns, AI, and Human Narcissism

For Ockham, concepts are merely mental constructs, derived from repetitive patterns (just as AI does). They do not preexist in objects (as Aristotle claimed), nor do they exist metaphysically as ideas (as Plato argued), nor are they innate to human consciousness, as some religions suggest.

Ultimately, both Ockham’s razor and AI’s razor cut through human narcissism—our tendency to see ourselves as inherently superior to nature.

Until now, humans have demonstrated superiority over nature—fueling our narcissistic belief in human exceptionalism. But will this still be true in the future?

Ockham philosophically dismantled this belief. AI is now doing it empirically.

Personally, I’m ready to enjoy the show—and I’ve already ordered a container of popcorn.

The Wolf and Fear: A Tangible Proof of Human Uniqueness?

I believe the real difference between humans and machines lies in what I call "the fear of the wolf."

• Both biological humans and machines can understand the concept of a wolf.

• For AI, it remains a theoretical relationship: "Wolf eats man."

• For humans, it is also a personal deduction: "Therefore, the wolf might eat me too."

Here, then, is a concrete proof that distinguishes machines from humans:

Fear—and emotions in general—are measurable physical alterations, not abstract or theoretical feelings.